Volt pricing announced. Starts at $41,000*

[HeHasReturned]

Not that I want to get dragged into a long discussion/argument, but there ARE reasons, some very good ones too, for regulations (If what you're advocating is complete deregulation).

[a_Username]

Oh and to address your "middle of the road" statement, I've had a hard time myself in seeing where I stand on the concept of mixed economies. Mixed economies employ both capitalist and socialist ideas, but by the time I'm done reading Mises books on Human Action, Socialism, and Liberalism I believe I'll have to agree with this statement:

Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by HeHasReturned

Not that I want to get dragged into a long discussion/argument, but there ARE reasons, some very good ones too, for regulations (If what you're advocating is complete deregulation).

I'd like for you to be more specific in stating which of these regulations are very good ones as you say it.

[HeHasReturned]

Originally Posted by a_Username

I'd like for you to be more specific in stating which of these regulations are very good ones as you say it.

Well, there are many, but I'll start with one good reason for regulating; Monopoly. Hence the big trusts of the 19th century and the eventual trust busting by Teddy and Taft. Anti-capitalism? Sure. But it worked out well for us, didn't it?

EDIT: I meant regulating, not deregulating

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by HeHasReturned

Well, there are many, but I'll start with one good reason for regulating; Monopoly. Hence the big trusts of the 19th century and the eventual trust busting by Teddy and Taft. Anti-capitalism? Sure. But it worked out well for us, didn't it?

EDIT: I meant regulating, not deregulating

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis

[HeHasReturned]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis

"What do I care about the law? Ain't I got the power?"---Cornelius Vanderbilt

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by HeHasReturned

Well, there are many, but I'll start with one good reason for regulating; Monopoly. Hence the big trusts of the 19th century and the eventual trust busting by Teddy and Taft. Anti-capitalism? Sure. But it worked out well for us, didn't it?

EDIT: I meant regulating, not deregulating

Predatory monopolies aren't stable in a market economy, and "regular" monopolies can only remain stable through benefiting the consumer. In fact, the only monopolies in existence are granted by governmental law, such as patents.

The Theory of Predatory Pricing fails to see the competitive need of price cutting. Since this is an automotive forum, I'll use Henry Ford as an example here. In 1908, he started on his quest to create the Model T, and at first he lost money and market share to Oldsmobile and Buick. However, 1910 turned out to be a good year for the industry, and all of Ford's advisers suggested raising the price of his Model T to match his competitors. But, Ford reduced the price in contradiction to his advisers suggestions. This risky practice paid off for Ford in the sense he became a dominant force in the automotive industry. However, the question here is to ask why didn't Ford get accused of "predatory pricing?" He knowingly cut prices to undercut the competition. The fact is that his decision vastly benefiting consumers by offering the first affordable vehicle for the average American.

The benefiting of consumers is the only way a monopoly can still exist. If they simply chose to raise prices because they're the only company who offers a certain product, then you'd see large amounts of competition arise. This coupled with the fact that, in the long-run, they would no longer produce profit. History has already shown competition arising in Standard Oil's situation. In its peak in the 1880s, Standard Oil controlled 90% of the market, however, by 1911, Standard Oil only controlled ~65% due to renewed competition.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

You can't simply say what price intermediate goods are going to be lol.

I wasn't talking about the price of intermediate goods ... just the price you pay at the pump. Up the tax now, and lower it later when gas actually gets expensive. And yes, gas will get more expensive. The world is continually using more, and there isn't any more getting produced within the earth. So rather than accelerate (by making it cheaper) the consumption of an non-renewable (and mostly imported) fuel, why not try and reduce the demand for it?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not too keen on rush hour traffic or urban congestion. It sorta takes the fun out of driving. In my mind, every person that carpools, takes the bus, or rides the train instead of driving their car means one less car clogging up the road, and the easier it is for everyone else to drive. Problems is, most mass transit systems aren't a very good option right now, partially because gas is so cheap. More expensive gas leads to more usage of mass transit, which leads to greater coverage, which increases usage even more.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I wasn't talking about the price of intermediate goods ... just the price you pay at the pump. Up the tax now, and lower it later when gas actually gets expensive. And yes, gas will get more expensive. The world is continually using more, and there isn't any more getting produced. So rather than accelerate (by making it cheaper) the consumption of an non-renewable (and mostly imported) fuel, why not try and reduce the demand for it?

If you follow along this path, you'll run into the Economic Calculation Problem. The finalized, consumption good that is fuel is undeniably at mercy to supply/demand. There is no need for government provoked inflation, when the market can decide this inflation when necessary. Also, in commenting on your non-renewable fuel statement, it may be non-renewable, but who's to say we've found all sources of oil? For example, recently in Afghanistan ~$1T worth of untapped mineral deposits were found.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not too keen on rush hour traffic or urban congestion. It sorta takes the fun out of driving. In my mind, every person that carpools, takes the bus, or rides the train instead of driving their car means one less car clogging up the road, and the easier it is for everyone else to drive. Problems is, most mass transit systems aren't a very good option right now, partially because gas is so cheap. More expensive gas leads to more usage of mass transit, which leads to greater coverage, which increases usage even more.

Yes it would be nice with less vehicles on the road, but you can't seriously be asserting that you wish for more people to not be able to afford gas so you can have a better driving experience.

[HeHasReturned]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Predatory monopolies aren't stable in a market economy, and "regular" monopolies can only remain stable through benefiting the consumer. In fact, the only monopolies in existence are granted by governmental law, such as patents.

The Theory of Predatory Pricing fails to see the competitive need of price cutting. Since this is an automotive forum, I'll use Henry Ford as an example here. In 1908, he started on his quest to create the Model T, and at first he lost money and market share to Oldsmobile and Buick. However, 1910 turned out to be a good year for the industry, and all of Ford's advisers suggested raising the price of his Model T to match his competitors. But, Ford reduced the price in contradiction to his advisers suggestions. This risky practice paid off for Ford in the sense he became a dominant force in the automotive industry. However, the question here is to ask why didn't Ford get accused of "predatory pricing?" He knowingly cut prices to undercut the competition. The fact is that his decision vastly benefiting consumers by offering the first affordable vehicle for the average American.

The benefiting of consumers is the only way a monopoly can still exist. If they simply chose to raise prices because they're the only company who offers a certain product, then you'd see large amounts of competition arise. This coupled with the fact that, in the long-run, they would no longer produce profit. History has already shown competition arising in Standard Oil's situation. In its peak in the 1880s, Standard Oil controlled 90% of the market, however, by 1911, Standard Oil only controlled ~65% due to renewed competition.

Hold on though...Once you've established a monopoly, you pretty much control the industry. There are no competitors because simply put, they can't compete with you. Predatory monopoly just sounds like the stage before monopoly, the complete control of the industry.
Yes, monopolies can benefit consumers, but what about the small business-people? There is no room for growth/competition in the market because there is too dominant of a monopoly. If there is no room for competition, isn't that inherently against capitalism? Not to mention no room for growth is not beneficial to society in the long run.
One company in power is never a good thing.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by HeHasReturned

Hold on though...Once you've established a monopoly, you pretty much control the industry. There are no competitors because simply put, they can't compete with you. Predatory monopoly just sounds like the stage before monopoly, the complete control of the industry.
Yes, monopolies can benefit consumers, but what about the small business-people? There is no room for growth/competition in the market because there is too dominant of a monopoly. If there is no room for competition, isn't that inherently against capitalism? Not to mention no room for growth is not beneficial to society in the long run.
One company in power is never a good thing.

Apparently you overestimate the power of a monopoly. Like in my previous post, competitors do arise again. Monopolies are only stable if they meet the consumers demand, and that's only if they can FOREVER keep competition that poses a threat from surfacing. The only way for it to keep competition from arising is under-cutting its price, but competition is always around the corner. These two facts combined would mean that the acting company would have to always undercut the prices of its competitors. This vastly benefits the consumer, but not the company in the least. In the short run, it is manageable. However, given a couple years the company in question starts to become unprofitable. It can only stay a company by making profits, and if it fails to do this investors will go elsewhere, only fueling the competition of this so called monopolized industry. In the situation of Standard Oil, the most famous accusation of being a monopoly, it sure didn't "control the industry" for long. In 1880, it had 90% market share, but by 1911 its market share has decreased to 65%.

Also, since you are against monopolies, why are you not contesting the government monopolies? For example, patents are a monopoly on ideas. It seems you are only against private monopolies, and you seem to put faith in a self-interested government forms of monopolies.

[The 2010 Sin]

ME want!

[HeHasReturned]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Also, since you are against monopolies, why are you not contesting the government monopolies? For example, patents are a monopoly on ideas. It seems you are only against private monopolies, and you seem to put faith in a self-interested government forms of monopolies.

I see private monopolies as more geared towards their own interests, whereas the "self-interested government" still has a conscience.

Also, going back to your point on Standard Oil, while they weren't officially dissolved until 1911, I think you're underestimating all the activity that took place in the two decades before, following Sherman and all the lawsuits pushed against Standard Oil. If the government had never intervened, they would have maintained the monopoly.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

If you follow along this path, you'll run into the Economic Calculation Problem. The finalized, consumption good that is fuel is undeniably at mercy to supply/demand. There is no need for government provoked inflation, when the market can decide this inflation when necessary. Also, in commenting on your non-renewable fuel statement, it may be non-renewable, but who's to say we've found all sources of oil? For example, recently in Afghanistan ~$1T worth of untapped mineral deposits were found.

What I fear is an increase that quickly goes from affordable to un-affordable

Originally Posted by a_Username

Yes it would be nice with less vehicles on the road, but you can't seriously be asserting that you wish for more people to not be able to afford gas so you can have a better driving experience.

No, not force it to the point of being affordable. Plenty of people factor in the cost of gas vs transit pass, the time of the trip, and the coverage of the transit system, among other things. Eventually, there is a tipping point, where on the one side it makes more sense to use a car and on the other, to take public transit. Raising the cost of gas will shift the tipping point towards mass transit by making it a less expensive alternative and increasing the coverage of the routes (due to the increased interest in taking mass transit).

And I am using the driving experience argument because I doubt too many people on a Camaro forum would object. I could have used foreign oil, but that gets too political. I don't even believe the environmental argument, so I arguing for it would be difficult.